I think the fact that people are still debating that one issue is proof she did a brilliant job as a writer.

We've agreed on a lot over the years, Yoana, but not this one. I just don't think she succeeded in showing Snape to be what she now says he is/was. I've said many times that I gave up on Snape after reading POA. Nothing I saw in the last four books changed my mind about him one bit. I also didn't buy the bit about Harry suddenly forgiving Snape and then naming his second son after him!

__________________

"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"

All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.

I just don't think she succeeded in showing Snape to be what she now says he is/was.

I think you and Yoana have a fundamental disagreement about what success as a writer means in this context. Consider a real-life controversial person (I don't know - Vladimir Putin? Winston Churchill? A slave-owning Founding Father like Washington or Jefferson?) Depending on their values, political views, and trusted sources for facts, different people have different views of these potentially controversial real life people.

The sense in which Rowling has succeeded, is that she has created Snape as a character who is so complex and contradictory that he is like the real-life famous controversial people of my example to her readers. She as the author sees him as the grey character with heroic and objectionable qualities she describes. But readers (as evidenced either on Twitter or here...) see him as a range of possible things, from a despicable human being who cannot be considered redeemed, to a purely heroic figure (once he changed sides). Just as different real life people will see the persons I named above, in similarly different lights.

__________________

The Sorting Hat says I belong in Slytherin.

“Death is the only pure, beautiful conclusion of a great passion.”-D. H. Lawrence

We've agreed on a lot over the years, Yoana, but not this one. I just don't think she succeeded in showing Snape to be what she now says he is/was. I've said many times that I gave up on Snape after reading POA. Nothing I saw in the last four books changed my mind about him one bit. I also didn't buy the bit about Harry suddenly forgiving Snape and then naming his second son after him!

No, what I meant was, if an author managed to stir debate, let alone long-lasting and heated debate, of their books, they did well as an author, because if there's nothing to analyse and argue about, if everything is clear-cut and there's no room for interpretation, it can't be a very good book IMO.

As for Snape, I think it's a matter of interpretation and you're just as right about him as I am and as JKR is. He's a literary character and as such belong to each reader and I believe there are no wrong interpretations. I haven't always believed that but I do now. Reading and making sense of stories and characters for one's own pleasure and fun is such an individual thing because we're all so different, coming from different backgrounds and experiences. I don't think there's such a thing as a wrong interpretation of a character, and the more interpretations there are, the greater depth there is to a character.

Must have been very entertaining watching that whole Twitter exchange unfold, Yoana!

Everything JKR said lines up with what I already felt about Snape, and her success in creating such a complex and conflicted character, so as you can imagine, I was rather pleased. And fascinated by the relationship an author has with their own characters!

Everything JKR said lines up with what I already felt about Snape, and her success in creating such a complex and conflicted character, so as you can imagine, I was rather pleased.

I don't know, I think that the fact that Snape's motivation was largely love takes away some of his complexity for me. It's the same thing with Dumbledore, which is why I maintain that Dumbledore wasn't entirely motivated by love but also had ambitions and other motivations which led him to do what he did. It's a matter of taste of course, but I don't find love very compelling as a motivation for a character. It makes sense and it's realistic that people will do crazy things when in love, but I would prefer it if a character's motivation didn't boil down to just that.

It would have been great if Snape first decided to change because of Lily but then also discovered other reasons for why he shouldn't be on the dark side. Yet even this recent Twitter discussion says Snape never had any idealistic motivations.

I respect his desire to redeem himself but love as a drive force just isn't very interesting to me. Voldemort seems like a much more interesting character.

No, what I meant was, if an author managed to stir debate, let alone long-lasting and heated debate, of their books, they did well as an author, because if there's nothing to analyse and argue about, if everything is clear-cut and there's no room for interpretation, it can't be a very good book IMO.

As for Snape, I think it's a matter of interpretation and you're just as right about him as I am and as JKR is. He's a literary character and as such belong to each reader and I believe there are no wrong interpretations. I haven't always believed that but I do now. Reading and making sense of stories and characters for one's own pleasure and fun is such an individual thing because we're all so different, coming from different backgrounds and experiences. I don't think there's such a thing as a wrong interpretation of a character, and the more interpretations there are, the greater depth there is to a character.

We're good, my friend. It's okay to think differently.

__________________

"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"

All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.

I don't know, I think that the fact that Snape's motivation was largely love takes away some of his complexity for me. It's the same thing with Dumbledore, which is why I maintain that Dumbledore wasn't entirely motivated by love but also had ambitions and other motivations which led him to do what he did. It's a matter of taste of course, but I don't find love very compelling as a motivation for a character. It makes sense and it's realistic that people will do crazy things when in love, but I would prefer it if a character's motivation didn't boil down to just that.

It would have been great if Snape first decided to change because of Lily but then also discovered other reasons for why he shouldn't be on the dark side. Yet even this recent Twitter discussion says Snape never had any idealistic motivations.

I respect his desire to redeem himself but love as a drive force just isn't very interesting to me. Voldemort seems like a much more interesting character.

I agree with this. It's hard to believe after 17 years Snape is still purely driven by love and guilt. I prefer to see him as more nuanced, and I find nothing in the text that dismisses that notion.

But I've seen this elsewhere, too: JKR said "Snape didn’t die for ‘ideals’. He died in an attempt to expiate his own guilt," but does this mean Snape wasn't also driven by or committed to bigger idealogy? Meaning foremost he died to expiate his guilt, but he could also have been motivated by 'the cause'?

Everything JKR said lines up with what I already felt about Snape, and her success in creating such a complex and conflicted character, so as you can imagine, I was rather pleased. And fascinated by the relationship an author has with their own characters!

Snap!!! But you knew that.

It was good to hear JKR's comments after all this time.

__________________

"he loved her for nearly all of his life, from the time they were children." ~ Harry Potter

I don't know, I think that the fact that Snape's motivation was largely love takes away some of his complexity for me. It's the same thing with Dumbledore, which is why I maintain that Dumbledore wasn't entirely motivated by love but also had ambitions and other motivations which led him to do what he did. It's a matter of taste of course, but I don't find love very compelling as a motivation for a character. It makes sense and it's realistic that people will do crazy things when in love, but I would prefer it if a character's motivation didn't boil down to just that.

I'd put it down as guilt instead of love. Both Snape and Dumbledore had to live with the fact that they were responsible for the death of someone they cared about. That sort of thing can scar you for a lifetime. And these guys were not the type to go get therapy either.